> In my experience, the longer a patch (or worse, patch series) sits > around, the staler it gets. Others are merging changes, so the > long-lived patch series has to be constantly rebased.
This is definitely true. > The 20% developer would be spending a greater proportion of her time > figuring out how to solve the rebase conflicts instead of just > focusing on her code. Agreed. The first reaction I had to this proposal was pretty much what you state here: that now the 20% person has a 365-day window in which they have to keep their head in the game, instead of a 180-day one. Assuming doubling the length of the cycle has no impact on the _importance_ of the thing the 20% person is working on, relative to project priorities, then the longer cycle just means they have to continuously rebase for a longer period of time. --Dan __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
